News Forum - Those who don’t report positive ATK results can face penalties – DDC director

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, whitesnake said:

The overwhelming truth is that Covid isn't the killer we are all supposed to believe it is! Sadly, the spin and fear mongering from governments and health officials has wound the world up in to an unnecessary FRENZY!!!  

So what's the reason for all the excess deaths if they're not down to Covid?

Depending on what figures you prefer to believe, they're between two and three times higher than the 'official' Covid death toll.

Are they just an unfortunate coincidence?

[Nat]

13 minutes ago, Stonker said:

What am I doing personally?

I don't drink and drive, however much I'd occasionally like to. 

Its a bit like wearing a mask however much I'd like not to - it's not that big an issue for me, but it could make a big difference to someone.

Why would you assume that?

Have I advocated 24 hour ATK tests on the pavement so that you'd be tested every five minutes which would be the Covid equivalent?

No, obviously I haven't, but why not pretend I have if you can't manage a rational response?

Actually I'm very well aware of the state of driving in Thailand, as I cycle around 30 kms a day.

Apparently considerably more aware than you, as despite the regular claims about this here, Thailand's halved the number of road deaths for the last three years (2019 - 21) compared to ten years ago. It's still way too high, but 12,000 deaths in RTA's a year (deaths within 30 days) isn't 'much higher' than deaths from Covid but is about half the number.

https://thethaiger.com/hot-news/road-deaths/thai-road-death-toll-tops-12000-in-2019

... and FWIW I exercise my "freedom" by not wearing a helmet but I ensure that doesn't affect others by having a comprehensive living will (DNR, etc).

No, my focus is on 'covid control' because it's a minor inconvenience to me, but could be a lifesaver for others.

If you fail to see the logic in that maybe you're in the wrong place.

Wow you just proved your own covidiocy - on one hand you would occasionally like to drink and drive but on the other hand covid control measures are a lifesaving minor inconvenience to you?

I am in the right place and need to say no more.

You better stop now while you are behind.

 

[Fanta]

1 hour ago, Nat said:

 

Your arguments do not stand up to logic.

Clearly the arguments do or you would reply with facts proving otherwise, not insults, wishes of ill health and attempted diversions. 

[BlueSphinx]

1 hour ago, Nat said:

Oh so does that also apply for deadly flu or many other infectious diseases that have "the potential to affect others"? Life is not free of risk.

A few years back I caught a very bad case of the flu and felt I was going to die. Was I questioning how I got it or who from? - No - I was focused on treating myself and recovering to get better.

There are an unlimited number of things that can negatively affect others. So you can either live in a totalitarian society such as North Korea or China where you have minimal privacy and have every aspect of your health regulated or live in a free and respectful society where there is such a thing as risk but also freedom.

You cannot control the spread of a virus like you can (or in your case - want) to control people.

And that is what this pandemic has turned into at this stage - a mode of government control  over the people without intelligently weighing the costs benefit analysis on how these directives affect economies and mental health.

I choose freedom and risk and my priority is living my life and not putting so much emphasis on a virus that has a near 100% survival rate for healthy vaccinated people.

You wrote: I choose freedom and risk and my priority is living my life and not putting so much emphasis on a virus that has a near 100% survival rate for healthy vaccinated people.

Liked your post, but why do you limit that near 100% survival rate to 'healthy vaccinated people' in your final paragraph? 

Why not 'children, as well as young and healthy people' as the virus - and certainly Omicron, the current dominant one - poses virtually zero risk to all those (be they vaccinated or not).

[Nat]

4 minutes ago, BlueSphinx said:

You wrote: I choose freedom and risk and my priority is living my life and not putting so much emphasis on a virus that has a near 100% survival rate for healthy vaccinated people.

Liked your post, but why do you limit that 100% survival rate to 'healthy vaccinated people' in your final paragraph? 

Why not 'children, as well as young and healthy people' as the virus - and certainly Omicron, the current dominant one - poses a zero risk to all those (be they vaccinated or not).

Sure - agreed.

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, huhuarf said:

The issue, again, becomes that of trust in what the process entails.  Far too many stories of asymptomatic or rather mild symptom having people testing positive and then being held hostage at hospitals.  It's all well and good for someone to suggest this is for the "good of society", but does that still hold true if you're being held against your will in a government designated facility and then hit with a 150k baht bill because the insurer said it wasn't necessary to hold you there?

Except these "stories" are just that - stories.

The rules and the law and "what the process entails" is very clearly laid down by the NHSO - my #136343

Unfortunately some people think they know better, hence the "stories" - and, to be fair, the problems because they listened to the wrong people.

[Stonker]

15 minutes ago, Nat said:

Wow you just proved your own covidiocy - on one hand you would occasionally like to drink and drive but on the other hand covid control measures are a lifesaving minor inconvenience to you?

I am in the right place and need to say no more.

You better stop now while you are behind.

What I actually said, which you quoted, was that I'd like to drink and drive and I'd also like to avoid 'covid control' measures, but I do neither as both are minor inconveniences and not doing either can save lives.

Maybe you are "in the right place", though, as misrepresenting what's been said isn't unusual here. 

 

[Stonker]

2 minutes ago, whitesnake said:

Uggghhhh! "Rules of the L A W.... ZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!" Big yawn time!!!!  Now, say after me 1000 times: "I must comply!" 

Well, if you know it that would save you being "held against your will in a government designated facility and then hit with a 150k bill" !

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, Manu said:

How is it disrepectful to choose not be vaccinated if, for example, you are 25 and healthy, has literally (!!) 0 risk of being badly ill or dying with a "vaccine" that does not prevent transmission AT ALL?? Because of the very very unlikely event that this guy will end up in intensive care and take over an intensive care bed from a vaccinated (although this same guy works and therefore contribute to fund the health care system?

I think you have me mixed up with someone else.

I've never advocated mandatory vaccines, and if you don't want one, fine.

If you end up being hospitalised because you've exercised your 'freedom' to ignore medical advice, though, to me you should be at the back of the queue for treatment.

Your "contribution" paid for a vaccine and treatment if that didn't work, but you turned that down.

Your choice.

1 hour ago, Manu said:

So you have always been "shirty" about everyone who do not get the flu vaccine then for that same reason?

No - thirty die from flu here every year, not approaching a thousand times that from the Corona Virus.

 

1 hour ago, Manu said:

So you are "shirty" about smokers whom filing up hospitals and intensive care because they have choosen to enjoy smoking?

So you are "shirty" about everyone who end up in hospital after a bike accident without wearing a helmet?

So you are "shirty" about all obese people who end up in hospitals with all sorts of pathologies because they have been eating mc donalds and KFC for the last 20 years?

Yes.

I have no problem with them exercising their 'freedom' as long as it doesn't affect others.

That's their choice. When it does, though, why should everyone else suffer because of them?

[huhuarf]

44 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Except these "stories" are just that - stories.

The rules and the law and "what the process entails" is very clearly laid down by the NHSO - my #136343

Unfortunately some people think they know better, hence the "stories" - and, to be fair, the problems because they listened to the wrong people.

Yep read the post.  It's good information and I would say many would suggest merely staying at home if they are asymptomatic.  No need to go to hospitals if you're not sick. Then again I'm the type the generally rides out colds rather than loading up on medicine.

You're missing the main point of all this.  People generally want a choice to decide on their health, and in this case a choice to stay in hospital.  Whether or not a government legitimately has the authority to mandate a costly stay or not doesn't change that fact.  In that post you directed me to once more it's very clear that a hosptial administrator gets to decide on what is best for you once you visit the hospital.  Hence why many will sit out even going.

Here I'll make it real simple:  if I feel I am in need of hospital services i go.  If I don't feel the need , I won't.

Edited January 20, 2022 by huhuarf

[Jason]

Wow...lots of emotion on this topic. In my country, where Omicron is rampant now, PCR testing was simply too slow to capture the scope of the Omicron spread. At first, there was no way of capturing the rapid antigen positive tests, which meant we were flying blind. Then each state put in place online reporting systems so people could report their positive result. That was turned around within a week, which was pretty amazing. Now all this data PCR and Rapid tests are collated and reported daily. It gives us the best possible picture of where outbreaks are happening and where to focus our efforts. 

[huhuarf]

I'll just put this out there too.  I've gotten jabbed,  boosted.  Wear my mask as demanded. Wash and alcohol my hands all the time.  Hell I barely even leave except for work. 

I've taken every reasonable precaution.  We keep getting told the vaccine means more than likely we won't be too sick if we get omnicron.

Knowing all that why would I volunteer to lay in a hospital bed for two weeks?  People should have the option to self quarentine.  When that is longer an option that one can exercise, then you could see why they wouldn't be keen to tell big daddy they think they might have a sniffle.

[Stonker]

26 minutes ago, huhuarf said:

In that post you directed me to once more it's very clear that a hosptial administrator gets to decide on what is best for you once you visit the hospital. 

No, that's NOT the case - if you don't agree or want to isolate at home " call the Department of Disease Control hotline at 1422."

30 minutes ago, huhuarf said:

Here I'll make it real simple:  if I feel I am in need of hospital services i go.  If I don't feel the need , I won't.

Fine, if it's just about "hospital services" - but it's not. It's also about quarantining when contagious and protecting others as well as yourself.

[Cabra]

Every director and minister in this country has an open mic to say the most outlandish things... This particular announcement has so many flaws it's hard to know where to start... You want to push testing further underground and dissuade people from taking care of themselves... Well, this is how you do it. I mean what next, ID cards required to buy the test so they can track you down for your results later. That would slam the door for good. And good luck arresting everyone who "doesn't report" positive results. This whole testing scare tactics approach has the potential to make the push to take the vaccine look like a walk in the park... Think about it, government agents standing at every corner forcing test like the knights who say Ni ("none shall pass" ). All this nonsense, but they want to sell more alcohol into the night, open more sandboxes and reinstate TnG. One step forward, 2 steps back...

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, BlueSphinx said:

You wrote: I choose freedom and risk and my priority is living my life and not putting so much emphasis on a virus that has a near 100% survival rate for healthy vaccinated people.

Liked your post, but why do you limit that near 100% survival rate to 'healthy vaccinated people' in your final paragraph? 

Possibly because he realises that they're at least risk, and it's not just about death and the effects of Long Covid?

1 hour ago, BlueSphinx said:

Why not 'children, as well as young and healthy people' as the virus - and certainly Omicron, the current dominant one - poses virtually zero risk to all those (be they vaccinated or not).

Possibly because he reads the latest studies and realises that there's not only a minor risk of death but of the effects of Long Covid and more probably of an impaired attention span and cognitive awareness for many for up to nine months after infection?

... and that could be a massive blow to any children or young people, as well as the healthy?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/covid-oxford-university-b1995706.html

1 hour ago, Nat said:

Sure - agreed.

Oh well ... maybe not

[huhuarf]

4 minutes ago, Stonker said:

No, that's NOT the case - if you don't agree or want to isolate at home " call the Department of Disease Control hotline at 1422."

Dude, literally from what you quoted, you don't have a choice.  You MAY have a choice.  Those are very different and at that point you've now taken agency from the person visiting the hospital.

To qualify for home isolation, patient must be younger than 65 years old with no health conditions that put them at risk of a severe infection. They must also be asymptomatic, or only have mild symptoms, and have living space where they can isolate from others. Those travelling in Thailand may be subject to quarantine at an approved hotel at their expense.

Why would someone 65 or over not have a choice?

What health conditions occur to put you at risk? (see, there's that medical discretion you don't admit exists)

What qualifies as mild symptoms? (see, there's that medical discretion you don't admit exists).

Again, you DON'T have an option. IF they find you don't qualify for home quarantine, then you aren't allowed it. How much plainer can that be?  You only have the option, if the doctor or medical administrator, decides that you get one.  Perhaps we are just operating under different definitions of option.  It's kinda like when Hong Kong is allowed by the CCP to vote on their leaders...you know, the two that the CCP approved to run for office....yeah, some choice there fella.

 

[Stonker]

10 minutes ago, Cabra said:

Every director and minister in this country has an open mic to say the most outlandish things... This particular announcement has so many flaws it's hard to know where to start... You want to push testing further underground and dissuade people from taking care of themselves... Well, this is how you do it. I mean what next, ID cards required to buy the test so they can track you down for your results later. That would slam the door for good. And good luck arresting everyone who "doesn't report" positive results. This whole testing scare tactics approach has the potential to make the push to take the vaccine look like a walk in the park... Think about it, government agents standing at every corner forcing test like the knights who say Ni ("none shall pass" ). All this nonsense, but they want to sell more alcohol into the night, open more sandboxes and reinstate TnG. One step forward, 2 steps back...

Agreed - it's at best pointless and at worst counter productive as has been shown elsewhere.

In the UK, according to the Parliamentary Commons Committee in October "Only 14% of 691m lateral flow tests sent out had results reported, and who knows how many took the necessary action based on the results they got, or how many were never used".... and "Even now, uptake of NHS test and trace is still “variable” as some vulnerable people are much less likely to take a test than others, the report says. Urgent improvements are needed in public outreach, with more than 60% of people who experience Covid-19 symptoms reporting that they have not been tested, and certain groups, such as older people, men, and some ethnic minorities, less likely to engage with the service."

...and the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee before that, back in May, said that the testing was making  "no measurable difference to the progress of the pandemic" and that it was an "unimaginable" waste of resources: "Yet despite the unimaginable resources thrown at this project Test and Trace cannot point to a measurable difference to the progress of the pandemic, and the promise on which this huge expense was justified - avoiding another lockdown – has been broken, twice."

It just doesn't work - those who need to be tested most won't be, while those who don't need to be will be the ones who go for it.

 

 

[Stonker]

11 minutes ago, huhuarf said:

Why would someone 65 or over not have a choice?

What health conditions occur to put you at risk? (see, there's that medical discretion you don't admit exists)

What qualifies as mild symptoms? (see, there's that medical discretion you don't admit exists).

You've got the phone number - why are you asking me?

... and of course "medical discretion exists" - that's what the whole point is about!

11 minutes ago, huhuarf said:

You only have the option, if the doctor or medical administrator, decides that you get one. 

That simply isn't true - I don't know how to explain it any more clearly. It isn't up to the hospital, but up to the DDC and NHSO. Ultimately someone has to take a decision if it affects other people, otherwise you're advocating anarchy.

11 minutes ago, huhuarf said:

Perhaps we are just operating under different definitions of option. 

Well, you have an option if eligible - if not, you don't. That's pretty universal anywhere.

11 minutes ago, huhuarf said:

It's kinda like when Hong Kong is allowed by the CCP to vote on their leaders...you know, the two that the CCP approved to run for office....yeah, some choice there fella.

Kinda like the option they had under the UK - or maybe not, as then they didn't have a choice at all! ... but let's not get too far off track

[huhuarf]

13 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Well, you have an option if eligible - if not, you don't. That's pretty universal anywhere.

Except it's not.  I've not seen a time in recent history where a hospital was allowed to force services onto a patient, at least not in any nation that I would consider relatively free.

OK then here's a better way to say this that I think encapsulates what we are thinking:  "Self-isolation may be an option afforded to a person, IF they meet certain requirements.  A medical personnel at the hospital will, following guidance from the DDC and NHSO, make a determination on what, if any, options are available which may include home isolation, hospitel stay, field hospital, or dedicated quarantine facilities.  Please note that any fees incurred are the responsibility of the patient."

I just somehow think that doesn't support your narrative, right? 

Edited January 20, 2022 by huhuarf

[huhuarf]

15 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Kinda like the option they had under the UK - or maybe not, as then they didn't have a choice at all! ... but let's not get too far off track

Heh fair enough it was better under the UK for damn sure.  I like arguing with you, just so we're clear.  You're pretty clever =)

[AMc]

-It is not illegal to go out while I am (supposedly) ill.
-I can go out if I have influenza, the common cold, an STD, AIDS, tuberculosis, and even with pubic and/or head lice (crabs), but OMFG by all means mandate me to get an experimental serum (it is not a vaccine) containing unknown materials (or rather, materiels!) to protect against a "vicious disease" with only a 99.98%+ survival rate should anyone even catch it.
-Want to know why they are "mandating" this poison? Hint: not for your health.

 

If you are concerned (or petrified with fear) about contracting "Covid-19"^TM  , which carries with it only a 99.98% chance of recovery, I suggest you

1)self isolate

2) practice social distancing

3)avoid crowds

4) wear a mask

5) get vaccinated

and most especially,

6) keep your "vaccine passport" up to date by receiving your n^th booster.

 

[Stonker]

21 minutes ago, huhuarf said:

OK then here's a better way to say this that I think encapsulates what we are thinking:  "Self-isolation may be an option afforded to a person, IF they meet certain requirements.  A medical personnel at the hospital will, following guidance from the DDC and NHSO, make a determination on what, if any, options are available which may include home isolation, hospitel stay, field hospital, or dedicated quarantine facilities.

No, because it's not correct .

As I've tried to explain, I've lost track of how many times, the decision is not (NOT) "taken by medical personnel at the hospital".

It's not their decision to make.

I don't know how to say that any more clearly or how to give more definitive links that spell that out.

29 minutes ago, huhuarf said:

Please note that any fees incurred are the responsibility of the patient."

Guess what?

That's not necessarily true either !

If anyone was living here 'pre- Covid', regardless of nationality or visa (formal residency not required) then their treatment and hospitalisation is free, by law (it was published in the Royal Gazette).

I've given links to that too, so anyone eligible can make sure they save 150 -300k instead of whingeing!

I genuinely don't know why there's a '65' rule (although I can guess) and haven't checked as I'm not there yet - I don't mind spoon feeding but I draw the line at bottom wiping.

[Stonker]

37 minutes ago, huhuarf said:

Heh fair enough it was better under the UK for damn sure.  I like arguing with you, just so we're clear.  You're pretty clever =)

I'm flattered, but it wasn't. No voting at all for 95 out of the 100 years, and then minimal compared to what's permitted now, and the Army on the streets shooting protesters with arbitrary powers of detention.  These thing are all comparative. Let's stay on topic .

[js89]

4 hours ago, Stonker said:

... and to heck with everyone else who has to suffer the consequences of your choice?

Fortunately most people here (in Thailand rather than 'here') have rather more consideration for others.

... and fortunately for the rest of us here your right to "choose freedom and risk" ends when it directly affects others.

 

I tend to lean towards this point of view, but it's a nuanced argument. Interesting comment on the notion of The Covid Risk social contract in The Atlantic

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/new-risk-social-contract-covid-ethics/621246/

 

[Rain]

4 hours ago, whitesnake said:

People die all the time!!! What's the big deal here?!

We seem to want to put selected premium and importance on the manipulated ideals regarding particular types of deaths. 

Any given year, there's much more of a likelihood of a greater percentage deaths from war, civil strife, influenza, vehicle accidents, common shootings/stabbings, malaria/dengue, cancers, animal/insect attacks, drug related, etc than anything Covid related. 

Yet, there isn't any such monumental hysteria and faux concern as to any of these avenues for death. 

Why is this?